Choice Architecture Helps Stakeholders Make Better Decisions

Do you ever find yourself adding fruits and vegetables to your tray while dining at a cafeteria and then asking yourself “Why do I have an apple and salad on my tray when I don’t even like salad”?  How about grabbing a lighter or a shaving razor from the check-out lane at the Supermarket? If the answer is yes, then you have experienced and been influenced by Choice Architecture.

Items like an apple or razor are strategically placed to influence your decision making. A cafeteria wants you to make more healthy choices, so they put healthy options at eye level and in the front of the line to increase its likelihood of selection. A grocery store leaves small razers or lighters in the check-out lane because those items often slip our minds when we shop for groceries. Seeing them when we’re about to pay for our groceries reminds us of how much we need them.

Choice architecture demonstrates how decisions consumers make are influenced by the way options are presented. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein introduced this concept in their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. A lack of choices, or the appearance of a default choice, assists in influencing a consumer’s decision making. Choice architecture can help influence consumers towards more socially acceptable behaviors such as choosing healthier foods, saving for retirement, or even registering as an organ donor.

The Federal Government strategically practices Choice Architecture daily. The wording of specific items and activities occurring in briefs and the placement of federal employee benefits throughout offices allows for the information to be readily available immediately and regularly.

With retirement benefits, the Federal government uses Choice Architecture to help automatically enroll participants, providing greater benefits in the long term. Federal employees who are automatically enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or the Blended Retirement System (BRS) and do not contribute election have 3% of their salary automatically contributed to their Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account. The government matches their employee’s contribution dollar-for-dollar for the first 3%. If the employee elects to contribute 5%, the government matches an additional 50%, resulting in a match of 4%. The automatic 3% contribution along with the matching, nudges the employees into being more prepared for their retirement. The government has adopted the notion that If the default option for our TSP is to invest, employee will be more likely to save for retirement.

Another example of Choice Architecture is when the Federal Government automatically provides membership into the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Pre-Check program when a U.S. traveler signs up for Global Entry. This helps passengers get through airport checkpoints for domestic travel more quickly while simultaneously helping the government increase security at the same time.

Complex challenges that require large groups to adopt behaviors that benefit them and help the Government provide more services are ripe for behavioral science and Choice Architecture. It is important that agencies consider behavioral science for problem solving. Stakeholder behavior is hard to predict, so measurable experiments can pave the way to a successful implementation.